Fitz was charged with investigating whether or not there was a violation of 50 USC 421 or 18 USC 793. I don't believe the evidence supports a conclusion that there wasa violation of either; which put me, Toensing and DiGenova in agreement.
If there is no crime, how is Libby's testimony material?
The testimony is material in that it goes to one of the elements of the aforementioned statutes. As to 50 USC 412, the element that fails in "covert," as Plame was not, and as to 18 USC 793, there are numerous missing elements.
If it is not material, how is it perjury?
The testimony is material in that it goes to the element of whether or not a government agent disclosed Plame's identity.
can you name some other instances where someone had been indicted for perjury for similar non-material testimony?
Martha Stewert. I could find others, I'm sure, with research.
Lastly, why is this so important to you?
It's not important, I just find it interesting.
Do you think you have a higher regard for the rule of law than say, Joe DiGenova?
No.
"Martha Stewert. I could find others, I'm sure, with research."
Wrong. There was a crime committed. MS wasn't convicted, but her partner was. Her testimony was material.
For the nth time, Libby's testimony was not material. It was not necessary one way or the other, for Fitzgerald to learn there was no crime.
Whether Libby had or had not leaked her name--and whether he lied about it -- is all completely irrelevant as to whether a crime occurred.
No crime occurred because Plame's identity was not protected by any law. You even agree to this.
So you must perforce agree that Libby's crime was not material to any underlying crime. So it should not be prosecuted.
This is what Joe DiGenova says. This is what the Washington Times editorial has said.
There's more to it than that, but Martha's case and Libby's are 99.999999999999% dissimilar.